On 07/19/04 14:22, Magnus Manske wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
> Sj wrote:
>> Please remember that we '''do not
need developer effort''' to move
>> towards Wikipedia 1.0.
Ohhh yes we do. I've been researching this 1.0 question. Mostly that there's
been *over a year* of wibbling on the mailing list to no end. Hence my use
of the present Subject: line.
I'm really extremely interested in pushing the 1.0 thing and making a
workable plan the cats will herd to, letting the wiki do the work and
harnessing the power of dilettantism as admirably as we do. The work needed
for a 1.0 will be stuff that will only help the live wiki version as well.
> Yeah I've heard that before. Coding features
is vastly easier than
> organising Wikipedians. If someone puts some pretty buttons on
> Wikipedia saying things like "review this article" and "mark for
> concise version", then people will start clicking them. Policies will
> emerge out of the chaos that ensues, and everything will come
> together. If someone wrote the feature 6 months ago, we'd be ready to
> print by now.
I'm on it, I'm on it! :-)
w00t!
Do we have a consensus on what things we want people to rate (accuracy,
coverage, good writing, grammar/spelling?) what scale (yes/no, 0-4, 0-10?)
and whether it's per version?
(I think there should be a bit of discussion before adding the feature
about possible ill effects of the per-version thing. It may make people
reluctant to polish minor problems in an otherwise high-rating version.
I may be completely wrong, of course. But I worry that this one, a feature
for 1.0, may have ill effects upon the live wiki.)
- d.